103.9166/5393: Telegram
The Chargé in China (Atcheson) to the Secretary of State
[Received 5:03 p.m.]
1357. Informational for Taylor,97 Lattimore,98 OWI, from Fisher.99 My No. 267. Bisson’s article in latest Far Eastern Survey and Hanson Baldwin’s column on China which appeared in July 20 New York Times have greatly agitated Chinese Government circles. Highlights of both were apparently cabled by Chinese Ministry of Information, New York office.
[Page 82]At weekly press conference July 28, Government spokesmen in heated off record comments branded Bisson’s allusions to “two Chinas”—“democratic” Communist China and “feudalistic” Kuomintang China—as completely false. Said Bisson either completely misinformed or had malicious intent toward China. Said Institute of Pacific Relations for past year had been growing steadily more anti-China.
Spokesmen announced that as the result of Bisson article Ministry was withdrawing privilege of transmitting material free to IPR over XGO Y. Later one Ministry official was overheard remarking that as a result of Bisson article and IPR attitude “it will be very embarrassing” for Bisson’s Secretary Edward C. Carter1 on his scheduled Chungking visit.
Baldwin article was cited at press conference as another example of how American writers seem to want to hurt China. His assertion that Chinese military communiqués could not be believed was especially irritating. Spokesman professed to be puzzled why despite all aid Allies had given China foreign writers persisted in “throwing mud in China’s face.”
In July 23rd press conference spokesman read prepared criticism of Baldwin’s article. Neither article nor criticism were published locally, but July 24th Ta Kung Pao editorially attacked article’s derogatory reference to western Hupeh fighting.
Meanwhile, Baldwin’s article in Reader’s Digest was splashed by Domei which officials here see and doubtless exacerbated official sensibilities. Japanese propaganda to China during the past few days has seized gleefully on both articles as typical of racial superiority Americans feel toward “all Asiatics”. The implied sympathy reversed their original line that the articles represented the real truth about Free China.
Contrasted to official Chinese reaction, private conversations with fairly representative intellectuals, none of whom even suspected of leftist tendencies, indicate considerable quiet satisfaction over these and Pearl Buck’s article in May 10 Life. A minor Government official, Kuomintang member trained in America, said he welcomed such criticism in America since nobody dared offer slightest criticism here. Although Baldwin’s assertions in some cases are exaggerated there is such dissatisfaction with things as they are that little exception was taken to these points.
We do not seek to influence this critical tendency in American press but offer the observations that it gives Axis propaganda an excellent divisive wedge and that criticism would be more effective if it coincided [Page 83] with a successful operation in Burma or really large scale victories in the Pacific.
Attention Barrett:2
In view of the above be careful not to quote Baldwin in a way to make him appear twofaced. Might be wise to drop him for a while.
- George B. Taylor, Deputy Director of Pacific Area, Office of War Information.↩
- Owen Lattimore, Deputy Director of Pacific Operations, Office of War Information.↩
- F. M. Fisher, OWI representative in China.↩
- Secretary General, Institute of Pacific Relations.↩
- Edward W. Barrett, Chief of Cable-Wireless Section and Overseas Bureau, Office of War Information.↩